←back to thread

David Lynch has died

(variety.com)
1190 points wut42 | 1 comments | 16 Jan 25 18:20 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
andrewstuart ◴[16 Jan 25 18:34 UTC] No.42729054[source]▶
Lynch's was still my favorite version of Dune despite flaws.
replies(6): >>42729154 #>>42729486 #>>42729711 #>>42730008 #>>42731754 #>>42732311 #
sho_hn ◴[16 Jan 25 18:41 UTC] No.42729154[source]▶
Yep, no contest. Compared to the sterile, boring, brooding Villeneuve version - a tone that worked well in Blade Runner 2049 however - it's so much more entertaining and interesting.
replies(2): >>42729203 #>>42730518 #
andrewstuart ◴[16 Jan 25 18:46 UTC] No.42729203[source]▶
I liked the first one from Villeneuve because for the most part it stuck to the story but the second one veered off into its own story.

I know its nerdy but I absolutely hate when movies of classic books think the story needs to be changed (I'm looking at you, Peter Jackson).

replies(3): >>42729283 #>>42729746 #>>42730783 #
angry_moose ◴[16 Jan 25 18:52 UTC] No.42729283[source]▶
I'm still reserving judgement.

In a vacuum I don't love the changes he made to Part 2 but I can also see how they will make it flow much better into Part 3 than Dune > Dune Messiah ever did (that always felt disjointed to me); as well as make that story more compelling.

replies(4): >>42729354 #>>42730317 #>>42730491 #>>42735065 #
andrewstuart ◴[16 Jan 25 18:57 UTC] No.42729354[source]▶
I wish just for once these directors had simply made the movie of the book and damn the consequences of what Hollywood thinks audiences want. The movies that directors such as Peter Jackson make are brilliantly done - if only the story wasn't hacked. And that's not even addressing the worst of the travesties such as Radagast the Brown being covered in bird shit and the dwarves in The Hobbit being a bunch of circus clowns.
replies(3): >>42729822 #>>42729862 #>>42731573 #
wbl ◴[16 Jan 25 19:37 UTC] No.42729862[source]▶
What works in books often doesn't work on screen and vice versa. They are different media.
replies(3): >>42731175 #>>42735090 #>>42744016 #
1. hulitu ◴[17 Jan 25 07:53 UTC] No.42735090[source]▶
> What works in books often doesn't work on screen and vice versa. They are different media.

Not really. The biggest issue is time. As far as i noticed, one needs 2 hours of movie for 100 pages of a book. Anything below this (fitting 400 pages in 2 hours) is art. That's why Lynch's version is better.